International Proceeding UNDIP July 2, 2011 Agus Subiyanto

(1)

(2)

II

This paper is a study of analytic causatives in Javanese from a Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG) perspective. Analytic causatives are the type of causatives where there are separate predicates expressing the cause and the effect, that is, the causing notion is realized by a word separate from the word denoting the caused activity. The question addressed in this paper is whether analytic causatives form a mono- or bi-clausal structure. In addition, this paper aims to explain the mechanism of argument sharing between the verbs involved in analytic causatives. By using a negation marker and modals as the syntactic operators to test mono- or bi-clausality of analytic causatives, it was found that analytic causatives in Javanese are biclausal. These constructions have an X-COMP structure, in that the SUBJ of the second verb is controlled by the OBJ of the causative verb (N)gawe ‗make‘. The syntactic structures of analytic causatives are described within a constituent structure and a functional structure, two main components of LFG.

Key words : analytic causatives, Javanese, Lexical Functional Grammar.

1. Introduction

There are three ways of expressing causativization, namely : analytic, morphological, and lexical causatives (Comrie, 1981). Analytic causatives are where there are separate predicates or verbs expressing the causer and the causee in a clause. Morphological causatives occur when the relation between the non-causative predicate and the causative one is marked by morphological means or affixes, and lexical causatives are where the relation between the caused and causing events has nothing to do with formal (morphological) marking, as with the Indonesian verb membunuh ‗kill‘, and the Javanese verb mbukak ‗open‘. Based on formal parameters (Shibatani,1976; Comrie,1989), however, there are basically two types of causatives: periphrastic/analytic causatives and morphological/lexical causatives. In this case, the first type refers to causative constructions which are biclausal in nature, whereas the latter is monoclausal. In other words, morphological and lexical causatives are syntactically treated in the same way in the sense that they are both monoclausal.

Analytic and lexical causatives usually occur in isolating languages, whereas morphological causatives occur in polysynthetic languages (see Bishop, 1992). English (Hollmann, 2003), Thai (Sudmuk, 2005), and Rongga (Arka et.al, 2007) are some examples of the languages having lexical and analytic causatives but not morphological ones as these languages do not have morphological means or affixes to express causativization. In contrast, some languages like Kewa and Papua New Guinea (see Bishop, 1992) have morphological but not analytic causatives. However, there are some languages like Javanese which have both morphological and analytic causatives as in the following examples.

(9)

359

This paper focuses on the syntactic aspects of analytic causatives. Some questions addressed in this paper are as follows. First, what is the mechanism of argument sharing between the verbs involved in analytic causatives. Second, do the constructions form a mono- or bi-clausal structure. Even though analytic causatives usually form a biclausal structure, there are some languages like Vietnamese that have analytic causatives with both biclausal and monoclausal properties (see Kwon, 2006). In this case, several tests for mono- /bi-clausality are required. The last part of the paper gives the description the syntactic structures of analytic causatives within the framework of lexical functional grammar (LFG).

2. Theoretical Review

The theory used to describe the syntactic structures of analytic causatives is Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG), a nontransformational theory of linguistic structure that was initially developed by Bresnan and Kaplan in 1970‘s. LFG is lexicalist in approach, meaning that lexical items or words are considered as important as syntactic structures in encoding grammatical information. LFG is also functional and not configurational, which means that abstract grammatical functions like subject and object are not defined in terms of phrase structure configurations or of semantic or argument structure relations, but are primitives of the theory. LFG assumes that language is best described and modeled by parallel structures representing different facets of linguistic organization and information, related to one another by means of functional constraints (Dalrymple, 2001).

Among the levels of representation in LFG are constituent structure, functional structure, and argument structure. These levels of grammar coexist in the sense that no level is derived from another. They are closely related to one another by correspondence mappings. Constituent structure (c-structure) in LFG is a surface phrase structure, conveying category information, and information on precedence and dominance of constituents. Functional structure (f-structure) consists of abstract attributes (features and functions) and their values. The theory of LFG defines f-structure and c-structure as independent, but mutually constraining levels of representation. This makes it possible for a given sentence to have more than one c-structure realization, as long as well-formedness conditions such as completeness and coherence are met at f-structure (Bresnan, 2001; Dalrymple, 2001).

3. Research method

This paper used the data of the ngoko (low) register of Javanese. The data were taken from Javanese native speakers of Surakarta dialect. The data of analytic causative constructions were collected by using observation and interview methods with recording and elicitation techniques. The elicitation technique was also used to test with the informants the grammatical acceptability of causative constructions with their various structures. In this research, the writer also applied reflective-introspective method (see Sudaryanto, 1993:121). In this case, as a Javanese native speaker of Central Java dialect, the writer used his linguistic intuition to create data and test the acceptability of the data. The data that the writer made were then consulted with the informants to check their grammatical PRED2. In Javanese, PRED1 is usually filled with the verb nggawe ‗make‘ or marak(a)ke ‗cause‘, and PRED2 can be filled with a state, a process, or an action verb. The causative verbs nggawe and marak(a)ke are semantically different in the sense that with the verb nggawe, the caused event denotes a volitional action, whereas with the verb marak(a)ke, the action on the part of the causee is not volitional. This especially happens when the causer is human. To prove this, the adverb sengaja ‗intentionally‘ can occur before the verb nggawe as in (2), but not before the verb marakake, as in (3). In addition, analytic causatives with the verb gawe can take the passive form as in (4), whereas those with the verb marakake cannot. This shows that the causative verb nggawe has a higher degree of transitivity than the verb marakake.

(2) Darmoyo sengaja nggawe dheweke nesu. Darmoyo intentionally N-make 2.SG angry ‗Darmoyo intentionally made him angry‘

(10)

360 Darmoyo intentionally cause 2.SG angry ‗Darmoyo intentionally caused him to be angry‘

(4) Dheweke sengaja digawe nesu (karo/dening) Darmoyo 2,SG intentionally PAS-make angry by Darmoyo ‗He was intentionally made angry by Darmoyo‘

Another characteristic of analytic causatives in Javanese is that they usually have the word order of SVOV. In other words, between PRED1 and PRED2, there is a noun phrase (NP) being the

‗It is his father in law that made him go (away)‘

Sentence (6) shows that PRED2 lunga ‗go‘, which is an action verb, should occur after OBJ as in (6-a), and it cannnot come directly after PRED1, as in (6-b). This is different from sentence (5) that has two possible orders as this sentence has PRED2 bingung ‗confused‘ belonging to a state verb (see Givon (1984) for the semantic classification of verbs).

The data of analytic causatives as presented above raise a question, that is, whether they are monoclausal or biclausal. To answer this questions, syntactic operators like negation and modals can be applied. In Javanese, negation and modals occur before the verb that they modify. If we claim that analytic causatives are monoclausal, PRED1 and PRED2 should get the same polarity and modals, and it is not allowed for PRED1 and PRED2 to get different polarity and modal markers. The use of the negation marker ora ‗tidak‘ and the modal bisa ‗dapat‘ in analytic causative constructions can be seen in (7) and (8) below.

(7) a. Darmoyo ora nggawe dheweke nangis Darmoyo NEG N-make 2.SG N-cry ‗Darmoyo did not make him cry‘

b. Darmoyo nggawe dheweke ora nangis. Darmoyo N-make 2.SG NEG N-cry

‗Darmoyo prevented him from crying (Lit: Darmoyo made him not cry)‘

(8) a. Darmoyo bisa nggawe dheweke nangis Darmoyo can N-make 2.SG N-cry ‗Darmoyo can make him cry‘

b. Darmoyo nggawe dheweke bisa nangis Darmoyo N-make 2.SG can cry ‗Darmoyo made him able to cry‘

(11)

361

which can modifies PRED1, as in (8-a), or PRED2, as in (8-b), confirms the claim that analytic causatives are biclausal.

4.2 Syntactic Structures of Analytic Causatives

Analytic causatives belong to a complex predicate. The concept of a complex predicate in this context refers to Alsina et al (1997) and Butt (1997) who claim that a complex predicate consists of at least two predicates (PRED1 and PRED2), with one predicate (PRED2) being an argument of the other (PRED1). The concept of a complex predicate above implies that a complex predicate consists in the argument structures of two separate arguments being brought together, and one of the arguments in isolation is taken to be incomplete. In this context, PRED2 is required by PRED1 in order to make the sentence complete. PRED2 here functions as a complement, especially an open complement (X-COMP). This can be seen from the unexpressed argument, especially SUBJ of the subordionate clause, and this

The sentence above has two clauses: a matrix clause and a subordinate clause or an X-COMP. In the sentence, the OBJ of the matrix verb nggawe is the same as the SUBJ of the subordinate verb nesu. Therefore, the SUBJ of PRED nesu should be unexpressed as it is controlled by the OBJ the matrix verb. The structure of the sentence above can be described below.

(10) Darmoyo nggawe ibune nesu ‗Darmoyo made his mother angry‘ Darmoyo make mother-POSS angry

SUBJ OBJ

PRED1 <Agent, Patienti PRED2 <Themei >>

(12)

362

sharing of the predicates, that is, the OBJ of the PRED meaning CAUSE is the same as the SUBJ of the X-COMP.

The variation of word orders of the causative verb, the OBJ and a state verb can be governed by a phrase structure rule for ↑‘(↑-bar) as ↑‘ ↑CAUSE {NP,↑}, stating that ↑‘ can be composed of ↑CAUSE

Analytic causatives in Javanese form a biclausal structure. As a complex predicate, analytic causatives are composed of the causative verb nggawe ‗make‘ or marakake ‗cause‘ and a state, an action, or a process verb. This second verb or PRED2 functions as the argument of the first verb (PRED1). In terms of the argument sharing, analytic causatives form a control structure, in that the OBJ of the causative verb controls the SUBJ of the X-COMP.

References

Alsina, Alex, Joan Bresnan, Peter Sells. 1997. ―Complex Predicates: Structure and Theory‖ dalam Alex Alsina, Joan Bresnan, Peter Sells (Ed) Complex Predicates. 1-12. Standford, California : CSLI Arka, I →ayan. 199ň ―Morphological Aspects of the-kan Causatives in Indonesian‖. Sydney: the

University of Sydney master thesis

Arka, I Wayan, Jeladu Kosman, I Wayan Suparsa. 2007. Bahasa Rongga : Tata Bahasa Acuan Ringkas. Jakarta : PUAJ

Bishop, Nancy.199Ň. ―A Typology of Causatives, Pragmantically Speaking‖ in Shin Ja J. Hwang and William R. Merrifield (Eds.) Language in Context: Essays for Robert E. Langacre. Dallas: SIL Bresnan, Joan. 2001. Lexical Functional Syntax. Oxford : Blackwell Publishers

Butt, Miriam. 1997. ―Complex Predicates in Urdu‖ dalam Alex Alsina, Joan Bresnan, Peter Sells (Ed) Complex Predicates. 107-150. Standford, California : CSLI

Comrie, B. 1981. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Comrie, B. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. London: Basil Blackwell.

Dalrymple, Mary. 2001. Lexical Functional Grammar: Syntax and Semantics. New York: Academic Press

Hollmann, →illem B. Ň00ň. ―Synchrony and Diachrony of English Periphrastic Causatives: a Cognitive Perspective‖. The University of Manchester doctoral dissertation

Kwon, Nayoung. Ň006. ―A semantic and syntactic analysis of Vietnamese causatives‖. In Asier Alcazar, Roberto Mayoral Hernández & Michal Temkin Martínez (eds), Proceedings of Western

Conference in Linguistics 2004 (WECOL 2004). Fresno, CA: California State University. Shibatani, M. (ed). 1976. Syntax and Semantics. The Grammar of Causative constructions. New

York: Academic Press.

Sudaryanto. 1993. Metode dan Teknik Analisis Bahasa : Pengantar Penelitian Wahana Kebudayaan secara Linguistik. Yogyakarta : Duta Wacana University Press

(13)

International Proceeding UNDIP July 2, 2011 Agus Subiyanto

CONTENTS